On C4 Fake News Newman introduced the Prof as a "hero of the Alt Right". Alt Right started as a term which was very specific in the US and liberals quickly started to use it as interchangeable with racist, bigot, fascist etc. And by implication they thus argued that anyone who was a hero of the Alt Right must also be a racist, bigot, fascist etc. As it happens Jordan is a hero of many folks on the centre and right for the way he shows how data can be used to mislead. But for folks like Newman anyone to the right of Kenneth Clarke is more or less Alt Right. So she introduced the interview with a smear.

What followed was 30 minutes of comedy. Time and time again Peterson would make a point. Newman would respond by stating that he had said something completely different and accused him of bigotry on that basis. Hence at 5 minutes 40 seconds she says "so you deny the gender pay gap". Of course Peterson had denied nothing of the sort - and this seems all to close to home for me with recent events at Bath Spa - he merely stated clearly that there are a number of facts that explain the gap of which gender is only one.

The interview is full of such classics from Newman " Why shouldn't women have the right to children" she asks. Natch Jordan had never said they did not. "You're saying (gender) equality won't happen" Cathy asserted. Jordan had said nothing of the sort. At 27 minutes in there is a superb segment on lobsters in which Newman asserts " You are saying we should organise our society along the lines of lobsters." It goes without saying that Jordan Peterson had said absolutely nothing of the sort.

At one point, after another ludicrous made up assertion from Newman, Peterson noted that her comments were made "because you are not listening.". At around 23 minutes on the matter of free speech which Peterson believes in for all, but Newman believes in only selectively, Peterson actually managed to silence his harpie interregator with a question she could not answer.

You might think that Newman's string of ludicrous bogus assertions and failure to grasp hard data is a sign that she is very stupid. That would be a mistake, she is not. Like nearly all the media liberals she is a product of public school ( Charterhouse) and Oxbridge ( dark blue). She is clever. Her problem is that she is liberal media establishment to the core. It is in her DNA. Thus she does not believe in free speech where it challenges her core beliefs and she will not listen to those who advance arguments or produce data which really threaten those beliefs. And it was actions driven by that mindset which left her looking so remarkably stupid in the interview below.